How Dave’s speech changed the ratings
October 6th, 2007-
Was it the IHT changes or the speech that prompted the Tory bounce?
There’s been a lot of commentary about what prompted the Tory polling surge with Labour saying it was the inheritance tax proposals that were the driving force. This appears to be just spin - and is not supported by the detailed data.
The above is from yesterday’s Populus poll in the Times and records how voting intentions changed between those questioned before Cameron’s speech on Wednesday afternoon and those who were surveyed afterwards.
-
As can be seen with the “before” group Labour had a 5% margin - amongst the “after” group Labour’s lead was down to just 1%. What is particularly marked between the two segments is the Lib Dem vote - up from 12% to 17%, most of which was at the expense of Labour.
Health warning: These are, of course, sub-sets and involve very small numbers but there does seem to be a broad trend.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Health warning: These are, of course, sub-sets and involve very small numbers but there does seem to be a broad trend
A slightly dodgy statement, don’t you think Mike? A trend would be small subsets of several polls showing the same thing.
Mike- I don’t think this kind of micro analysis of polls is at all reliable. Look at the LD’s- their support went up nearly 40% from 12% to 17%- now what was that all about? In my opinion- the sampling
Great minds, Mike!
I was just about to post some similar and telling data from the Guardian, which says today (I paraphrase just for reasons of clarity):
“According to the Guardian/ICM polls, before Cameron spoke, Labour was leading. After he spoke, the parties were neck and neck.”
Desperate lefties (hello Woger!) have been putting it about that it was just IHT that turned the voters. It wasn’t. It was tax AND Cammo’s bravura chattiness.
This chimes with some vox pops the BBC did in a South East marginal on the telly last night - all were positive about Cammo. People were saying ‘I just like the look of Cameron’, ‘Cameron seems refreshing’ etc.
I’m sure the ponceyboots still goes down badly in Glossop. But I suspect he is getting a much better reception in the southern marginals.
On Majorities - I think people are talking cross purposes. Of course it is perfectly possible to govern with a majority of 25. It’s only the recent huge majorities that have caused people to think any different.
However, you cannot govern without compromise with a govt of 25. Most of us would say from a neutral viewpoint that that is a good thing and makes for better govt. What the neutral would say and what Gordon Brown would want, however, are two different things.
One other point - most people are agreed that the parliamentary arithmetic at present is very unfavorable to the Conservatives. A majority is highly unlikely, and even if they got one it’s unlikely to be workable. I think most Conservatives would take an extra 2 years in opposition in return for a serious launchpad for the election after (caused 1) by more seats 2) the possible reduction of the LibDems as a serious “blocking minority” threat)
Wasn’t Peter Riddell saying the exact opposite in the Times and if so was he just regurgitating Labour spin without checking the internals?
I think it is enunciating any policies at all. Having Cameron as the only story worked only while there was a poll lead: as we learned when the lead evaporated and the attacks on Cameron started; well, what else could be blamed?
I suspect for a lot of people, £20 for married couples is more significant than inheritance tax. With food prices rising after a poor summer, below-inflation wage increases, and interest rate rises, money is tight as we start the run-up to Christmas.
All we need is another 5 Cameron speeches and the Liberal Democrats will be in power!!!
On a serious note the polls are moving all over the place - the certainty to vote causing much of the problem. I think they must be hindering rather than helping Gordon make a decision - he should do what he thinks is right and damn the consequences. Given a campaign things will settle down unless there is a major gaffe or a theme develops such as “the Tories still cant add up” or “it is time for a change”
So Cameron’s speech attacked Labour and drove some of their supporters back to the Lib Dems?
If it is the attack on Brown that grows the Lib Dem votes, would it not be in the best interest of the Lib Dems to focus ALL their efforts on attacking the Govt rather than consuming about 2/3 of their time living in the past attacking the former Govt?
Lib Dems need to reinforce their vote by explaining why their previous voters should stick with them rather than Labour.
5 - he seems to have been focussing exclusively on the Tory share. (of course Bob Worcester said that vote shares is more important than the lead)
6. There was a letter in London Lite saying just that yesterday: a bloke saying that he liked the idea of a regular £20 as a married man, and it made him want to vote Tory.
Rich pb commenters may be forgetting how relatively small sums can mean a lot to poorer people.
!
Mike do you see me post and then think “ah, must be time for a new thread”? That’s about the third time that’s happened in the few days that I’ve been posting!
On the thread title subject, my surprise is that so many people seem to have been paying so much attention to conference at all
The Liberal Democrats must be hoping Dave gives a lot more speeches and Ming keeps quiet. Another barnstormer at a pre-electon rally and another 4% of Labour move across to the LDs
What is interesting is why Labour feels the need to spin it that it was the IHT plans and not Cameron? I think that like many contributors on this site they hate Cameron so much that they cannot bring themselves to take a detached objective view.
This could be hugely dangerous - if Brown thinks that all he has to do is to smash the Osborne plan then he could be making a mega-mistake. I wouldn’t bet my job on it.
The Labour view of Cameron is very similar to the stances taken on Brown by many Tories before he came in.
Both parties have totally underestimated their opponents.
11 - they don’t. They pay attention to the media comment on the front pages.
3. Sean T. I thought your rallying cry and campaign call to arms for Labour in a 2007 election was brilliant.
“Two more years! Two more years!”.
Very funny and encapsulates the preposterousness of the situation. I imagine Saatchi and Saatchi are designing the posters as we speak.
7 Think the biggest risk is the CSR. Will Gordon & Darling try to pull some clever stunt like last Budget which unravels soon after?
He’s made around £35bn of pledges since becoming leader and is facing a situation where borrowing is at its upper limit and growth is slowing. The Treasury are clever at hiding black holes but if Labour seriously try to blow the IHT stuff out as unaffordable can they pretend they can spend 10 times as much on “new” policies? All Governments try a pre-election give away but its hard to see how Darling can afford it so there has to be clawback.
I like poll findings that can be explained. Why should DC’s speech have had no impact on the Tory share but pushed up the LDs by 5 points?
3. Hey Sean, why pick on Glossop, heavy commuter town these days.
Even back in the sixties I can remember the girls wore stylish boots in Glossop. Ah memories!
13. Why do they hate Cameron so much? OK he’s a posh nancyboy, but the poor chap has a badly disabled son - he’s not had it that easy.
The absurd Kevin Maguire in the Mirror wrote an hysterically unpleasant piece about Cameron the other day, it was such a foam-flcked hatefest I thought he might rupture his bile-duct.
What’s this about? Is it just class hatred? Is it deep social insecurity from chippy lefty twonks? Is it just cause Cammo’s wife is quite hot, and that makes the ugly Gollums of the left writhe with spavined envy?
What is it? Curious.
11. Cold Life Liberals. I read your post about spread betting on the recent thread. Regarding how the Labour seats spread was reducing despite the numbers of sellers drying up? And something about 2nd and 3rd level traders?
I didn’t follow it. Could you explain further?
According to the Times the three parties, good question I suppose which three, have been out this week delivering postal votes.
News to postal voters on our estate, in this swing marginal seat.
You just view this apparent media and spin gush with incredulity.
Interesting information Mike.
Labour just spin shocker?
Mike it’s simple. Policy foxes can be shot (but not this one - just a watered down offer) but party leaders’ strength and charisma can’t be. Labour can’t afford the Lobby (HI LOBBY) knowing that the polls show people loved the speech - because DC will be on tv throughout the 3 weeks.
GB presents better when he isn’t there - when he’s chairing COBRA etc. When he’s actually speaking, as at conference, he underwhelms.
When Cameron engages it’s the other way around. Over a 3 week campaign who wins?
So Labour must keep this and icm’s internals quiet.
Odd that the Tory vote didn’t change but as Tyson points out the Lib Dem vote increased nearly 40%. What is it about Cameron that makes people want to vote Lib Dem or perhaps it was just sampling error?
18. Apologies to Glossop! Never been there, of course. Pure southern prejudice (or Cornish, in my case).
Its just that Glossop sounds so archetypally Northern. It nearly rhymes with ‘clogs’ and it has the same number of syllables as ‘whippet’.
However I am sure it is lovely. Or loovly, as they say up North.
20. Oops! Should read “Cold Fife Liberals”. How many of you are there by the way and are your posts a consensus view of the group? Do you go with the majority view or does everyone have a veto?
13: true but one new factor at play is that there is a genuine hatred for Brown/Cameron amongst some core voters and activists. Core Tories will be gagging to vote against Brown and the polls support this view. Labour hatred for Dave seems to be restricted to their activits at least at the moment.
Mike. There was a paper review this morning on Sky just after you were on and a man from the Telegraph produced a full page either from the Telegraph or the Times explaining that it WAS IHT that swung the polls.
19- seant- and taking your bait- it is a mixture of the arrogance of Eton, and a birthright, and not knowing very much about anything other than the small enclave of his life, and his little Etonian clique that he surrounds himself with, the exclusivity of Bullingdon, his love of hunting and killing animals, the obnoxiousness of the Tory country set, trying to kid people that he is one of us when really he is pretty clueless about anything outside his circle.
Cameron is a throwback to a bygone era of deference, arrogance, and snobbery- sure it still has a place in society, but should be on the fringes in an elitist pressure group, not in trying to get back in power.
Actually Cameron himself seems quite a nice bloke- it just everything that he stands for I despise.
Re 15, Stjohn, Yes it was a great comment by SeanT!
Tow more years!
27 - What of the “Brown Tories” then? or is that a Brownite fairy-tale that’s now been put to bed, despite Gordon’s best and most craven efforts?
28. But ICM and the Guardian says it was Cammo’s speech, and this is firmed up by the Times details. And this is further confirmed by the vox pops the BBC did last night.
Sorry Woger, you’re just wrong. You should be used to that by now.
27: He left them behind in Basra I’m afraid
25 seanT- you need to get over to Accrington- now that is a proper northern town. Rows of terraces, men in flat caps walking whippets, and straggly, pasty faced street kids. And where people genuinely say “ay up” before speaking- I kid you not.
Mike.
Journalists are already doing a job on Osbornes tax palns.They wont stand examination.
How Dave will cope with difficult questioning on Economics has yet to be seen.
Whatever the analysis shows, there is no doubt in my mind that Mike is right about Cameron. The more the public see of him the more they like him. And he grows in experience and stature by the day. His Achilles heel is that commentators sometimes succeed in getting under his skin and he then reveals a tetchy, irritated and rather arrogant side. But he seems to be getting this under control.
And as for Brown. They keep showing footage of him at the Labour conference. Far too self satisfied for my liking.
19 - it’s because DC has the same effect on Labour people as Blair had on Tory people around 1994.
Subconciously, they know the game is changing if not yet up. For the first time in a long while, the Tories have the narrative on fresher policies, just like Blair did in the 90s.
Mind you, the political left have a far more emotional attachment to class. I forget the exact quote now, but I think it was Gore Vidal who said that being inarticulate, or by implication working class made you more “authentic”.
That’s what I think a lot of it boils down to - Cameron ticks all the boogeyman boxes. Went to decent school - check. Speaks elequantly - check. Tory - check. Doesn’t live in a slum - check.
Incidentally, I watched the 1987 GE rerun when they cut to a Labour HQ and the comments about the electorate going for those who “back the wealthy elite” could easily be written today.
28 - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/peter_riddell/article2599660.ece
24 I suspect that this`Populus ‘finding’ means zero. It’s probably based on a tiny handful of extra people going for the LDs ; low single figures? The Press and media coverage of DC’s speech was very favourable so I’d be very surprised if it didn’t have an impact even it was in solidifying a bounce already achieved by GO’s tax proposals. However, I can’t prove it and Populus doesn’t enlighten us one way or the other.
stjohn - the last thread title had this:
“In the betting there’s been a sharp move from Labour on the Commons seat spread markets. Last night’s closing price from IGIndex was LAB 320 - 326 seats: CON 242-248: LD 46-49.. Last Sunday the Labour spread was 332-338 seats. The weight of money is moving against Brown.”
In the post I made a couple of days ago I said that there seemed to be very little money available for anyone wanting to buy Labour seats. (I think you said it reflected a poor spread in a thinly traded market).
My thinking at the time was that may be (may be) it might reflect a drying up of people willing to sell Labour seats - which logically would imply that a lot of people think that the number is about to go up.
Whereas in fact Mike is reporting that the trend, which had been rising steadily, is turning down. So I’m now wondering whether it is an indicator of the oopposite of what I conjectured at the time.
Level II and level III are the names given to financial market mechanisms which you can access if you pay hefty subscriptions. It functions very like a spread betting screen - level II is where you can see the unmatched trades piling up and level III is the level where you can actually put trades on. I’m enturely sure but I would imagine that on Spreadfair an account holder therefore has, in effect, a level III screen.
From what I understand you can use patterns in the trading pile-ups in what people are looking to buy and sell in order to conjectures shifts in the trend and I was wondering whether this is the kind of thing they look for. Something in the back of my memory tells me that it’s an American day trading strategy.
29. DC has a very badly disabled son who is constantly in and out of NHS hospitals; Cameron has, by all accounts, spent many nights at his son’s hospital bedside, as the kid fought for his life.
Cameron does not play on this, which is to his credit. But I will say it for him.
Yes he is rich and very well educated. So was Blair. Yes he can come across as arrogant at times, but look at Brown and Miliband!!
I find his gaylording ponceybootsness rather offputting at times - obviously - but the fact is he is quite personable, he is obviously clever, he is articulate and optimistic, he seems genuinely relaxed, and he has firm beliefs - many of which I share.
I think a lot of people in the country are looking at Cameron and seeing similar positives. They are not won over yet, but they don’t share the visceral and slightly embarrassing hatred of people like you and your lefty confreres.
If anything is truly off-putting it is this nasty class-hatred and chippiness from Labour. Enough already: it does you no favours.
it’s because DC has the same effect on Labour people as Blair had on Tory people around 1994.
To an extent. But what Cameron lacks is the solid cushion of support that Blair had. If Blair had had Cameron’s poll ratings in the mid-1990s, he would probably have faced a much greater fight.
35 - it’s fairly easy to “do a job on the tax plans”. All you do is point out that Gordon’s forecasting isn’t very good and that any money raised from tax rises will be swallowed in a couple of months as a result.
Of course Labour can’t say that so they make pointless claims about whether one 3bn tax cut can be offset by a 3bn tax rise elsewhere.
The obvious answer to which is that 3 bn might as easily be found due to a slight underestimation in the forecasts.
Of course the Tories can’t say that.
So we get phoney arguments about tiny amounts of public expenditure and taxation.
36 stjohn- what happened at Ealing Southall then? Brand Cameron is not as strong as the Tories are thinking at the moment. 2 things happened at the Tory conference- they did not shoot themselves in the foot, and the IHT policy resonated.
42 - agreed.
41 - It’s pretty clear that Tyson’s post has absolutely nothing to do with Cameron and everything to do with what he “represents”. For example, I don’t know but i suspect Cameron couldn’t care less if hunting disappeared, from a personal viewpoint. Most city livers wouldn’t.
40. CFL. Very interesting. Thanks.
The Cameron speech was a slow burn one, it set the stall for the future of his party and didn’t give vote changing cues. This is why I said that you have to wait a couple of weeks, only then will any changes of substance become apparent.
And Cameron gave a much better and braver speech than Brown, Tyson!
3 - Seant - I come from Glossop!
OT - Australia.
Bookies now showing punters favour a Labor majority on a seat by seat basis (this is a new development surprisingly, despite the great polls for Rudd):
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22541400-2,00.html
also…
I usually don’t comment on UK politics here, as I read PB to follow what you guys think as you are on the ground. But as I have been here in the UK now for a week and have been following the politics, I think that I would be surprised if GB didn’t call an election soon - but not next week. I agree with Riddell in the Times, I think he needs more time before he knows whether this Cameron bounce is fading or will be sustained.
29. Tyson I argued the case with someone earlier this week that the Cameron’s class and style was in fact part of what was helping him. I suppose this is a variant of Finkelstein’s view on Tory strategy (go for AB moderates first) from what I have seen in the Times.
If any of you are unlucky enough to be in the same dingy internet cafe near London Victoria station as I am, then hello! *waving*
26 - (StJohn) Just me! I do post a majority view after taking a consensus and do frequently veto or self-censor my posts.
32 SeanT. I just don’t believe people are swayed by a speech however good or bad. If they had been Kinnock would have been PM long ago. Whatever you might have thought of Cameron’s speech you surely aren’t saying it was more impressive than several of Kinnock’s or several of blair’s for that matter? If you really think a speech can shift 5% of voters then we’ll just have to disagree.
53 “If you really think a speech can shift 5% of voters then we’ll just have to disagree.”
No but an arrogant hubristic rally held perhaps in sheffield can!!
51 - He can’t wait for ever! Who wants to go out campaigning when everyone is preparing for Christmas?
Mike - very thin stuff from you based on a minute sample and not borne out by other findings.
Still, why let facts get in the way of a good bit of spin?
53 - What was the explanation for the double digit leads after Gordon’s speech?
41- seanT- I can assure you the Eton clique is just as offputting to many Tories as Labour- probably more so, since Thatcher and co brought a meritocratic feel to the party. Many Tories do not agree that people should be able to buy their kids a good education. 14 old Etonians in the shadow cabinet, and a fair few others hanging around Cameron. This is not good- and a big reason why Cameron is just not going to be a PM in this country.
The profound and complex needs of Cameron’s disabled child means that he has to use the NHS, and state education. There is not any private sector market in the health or education sectors that is able to make a profit from children with these kind of needs. Mild autism perhaps- Ruth Kelly’s son, but not profound disabilties. So Cameron has to rely on the state here- he has no choice.
OK, gotta do some work in a minute.
It’s worth noting that the Guardian comes out very heavily against a 2007 election. Martin Kettle says it would be absurd and foolish, the news features all emphasise the negatives, and the editorial - which sharply criticises Broonsauce for getting in the mess in the first place - makes a very cogent argument as to why he should stay his hand.
So the Labour supporting left want Brown to wait. But the sly Tory Matthew Parris in the Murdoch Times wants Brown to go.
What does that say? He should wait. He would not be forgiven by his supporters if he takes this stupid gamble and comes back with anything but a very healthy victory. Even if he wins and wins big, questions will arise as to his recklessness.
He will say No. That is officially the seventh time I have changed by mind since Thursday.
53. Roger, you are missing the point. I don’t think it was “the speech” qua speech that swayed people. I’m working on the Smithson Principle. The more voters see of Cameron the more they like him.
For three months Cammo has been battered by Brown in the media. Labour have started to plant in people’s heads the unfair notion that Cammo is ephemeral, vague, silly, unprincipled.
But then suddenly voters are exposed to Cameron - the reality - and they see this perfectly nice bloke making perfectly good points in a rather charming but still serious way. And they think: Er, isn’t this guy meant to be a tit? He’s not. He seems OK. And then they compare that to Brown’s dour rantings. And they start to wonder..
So it was not the speech in itself (which I agree was not earth-shattering) which has swayed people. It’s the media exposure which counts, as Mike has said many times.
Of course you can disbelieve the polls if you like. I imagine Brown isn’t being quite so dismissive.
I don’t know why you’re changing your line Roger. Just say it was the short-term effects of the speech which will quickly dissipate once people remember why they were going off him before it.
51. No indeed. I am attracted to the theory advanced by the former Blair adviser on Newsnight last night - spring. It also chimes with the point Brown’s biographer made on the show about his lifelong caution.
44. Tyson. ES was a major strategic mistake. Brand Cameron is the strength of the Tory party and its revival. But to describe the Tory Party as “David Cameron’s Conservatives” was arrogant, illjudged and costly. It was one of a serious of strategic errors at the time which contributed to a sharp downturn in Tory fortunes.
But they appear to have learnt from their mistakes. People like confident self assurance. He has rediscovered that persona with the public and if he can maintain that image he looks to be the giant of his political generation.
61. How much backlash will Brown take, however, if we get all this electioneering buildup in Spring next year, all over again!?
14 old Etonians in the shadow cabinet
That inaccuracy has been exposed ages ago. There are three in the Shadow Cabinet.
Alexander. It’s very unlikely to be Spring. If he bottles it now because of bad polls what makes you think they will improve by the end of March?
On the contrary he’ll take a big hit to his image while DC will be on an upward path. Plus the idea of months more speculation will start to disgust the public.
If he bottles it now he’s headed to 2009/10 which is not where he wants to be. That’s why I’ve no doubt that ceteris paribus GB wants to go now. The trouble is that the ceteris aren’t paribus…
Cameron’s speech was not aimed only at the converted in the hall.
He wants to solidify the core, win converts from the LDs and if possible Labour. If he can’t win the last two categories over he wants to plant doubts in minds so that those that are soft Labour voters abstain or vote for someone else.
This poll seems to suggest job done on that basis. he has detached some of the soft-Labour-once-LD voters from Labour.
Stage two of a complete move to the Tories. How? No idea. But I can guess.
He has also called UKIP voters back in a clever way, and that will be built on too once a campaign begins.
Spring has to be a complete no-no. As the Guardian says, it’s now or 2009. He’s gone to the top of the hill once. He can’t keep doing it.
46- alex- quite right. I think the Eton thing wouldn’t bother me if say Cameron and his clique was leading the LD’s or the Greens, or even Labour for that matter. There is something oddly endearing and eccentric about upper class lefties- apart from Countess Harman and Ruth Kelly that is who are pretty much beyond redemption.
It is the synergy of Eton, country Tory, and Tory party that is completely offputting.
Many people would equally be offput by a clique of working class trade unionists leading the Labour party. Like a throwback to a bygone era. That is what Cameron and his Etonian Tories represent.
OH MY GOD, what’s happened?????!!!! The odds on Betfair have suddenly come in to 1.2 and the…
ONLY JOKING!!!!!!
Just trying to liven things up. We need a new poll to stoke the fires. I haven’t changed my mind about the election in minutes. Dull, dull, dull.
And with that I shall sign off for at least half an hour, as I try to rewrite my difficult fourth novel. Ciao.
If True,this would swing the female vote for Gord.
Brown’s Honourable Member
A mole used to work at the Department for Work and Pensions and had the pleasure of occasionally running into the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, at the Treasury gym.
He reports that our current Prime Minister is packing some serious fiscal policies between his legs, which would be more at home on a racehorse than a dour Presbyterian.
Seriously, it’s no wonder his wife always looks knackered, the mole assures us. Gordon is holding a majority of a tube of Pringles with a bull’s heart on top, and if there was a sudden swing to the right it’d take half of Whitehall with it.
I notice that Mike you haven’t 1. posted up the several counter poll findings to this and 2. has not posted the comparable figures before and after on IHT. They are out there - and pretty conclusive.
Poor thread in terms of Mike’s usual standard.
Why are so many Labourites focussing on whether Osborne’s £3bn IHT change is fully costed. They applauded their Big Controller’s speech which was throwing away £3bn every 5 minutes - and he spoke for over an hour. One to one tuition in state schools - jeez how spendthrift is that (I have a photograph of my state junior school on Tyneside in the 1950s and there are 49 boys - and we concentrated on the blackboard, or else).
How much better off will Cameron and the Shadow Cabinet be after the changes in IHT?
Dave £280,000
George £280,000
etc etc
65 - Unless he thinks the economy is about to implode to his detriment I don’t see why he should worry about 2009. 2009 is not 2010 and the two shouldn’t be bracketed together.
Amid all the talk about early elections the main reason why PMs don’t generally serve their full term is sometimes missed. The reason they go early is so that they can go on their own terms, at a time of year of their choosing, without being derailed by unforeseen events. And about a year early is generally felt appropriate. It is not because they go at a time when they feel they are certain of winning. No Prime Minister is ever certain of winning. That is why all the talk of the early election is so ludicrous and unprecedented.
Callaghan made a mistake in 1978 because he waited and then had no time for manoevre.
73 Tim Can you show us your calculations please?
68 “Many people would equally be offput by a clique of working class trade unionists leading the Labour party. Like a throwback to a bygone era. That is what Cameron and his Etonian Tories represent.”
I think people are by and large put off by behaviour not background. This is why it has sickened many people to see Brown going to Basra - a more cynical stunt we hopefully aren’t likely to see, but as many posters here are saying knowing Brown anything is possible, for example I expect to see terrorist threats that mysteriously evaporate whilst Brown is doing his cobra bit. It is as predictable as the day is long and I think he needs to be careful because people are starting to see it for what it is.
72 - well quite. The whole thing’s ridiculous.
Cameron to inherit over a million.
IHT threshold up from 300,000 to £1,0000,0000
40% of £700,000 = £280,000.
Now Witan.
Can you show us th calculation to pay for this.
How many Non Doms have an overseas income of more than £63,000.
You must know.
78 tim whats the final bill for the 2.4bn olympics?? 10bn+
Well the longer Brown leaves it the closer he gets to Cherie’s autobiography book launch currently scheduled for Oct 08.
It could have extracts brought forward if Brown waits until spring as the newspapers would pay large sums for the juicy bits at election time.
You’re not suggesting we should give that to Camerons family as well are you?
80 - Now 10.01 bn
Anyway- with all this election bluster we are losing track of the LD’s- who must be praying for a delay. An autumn election would almost certainly bring a 2 party squeeze, and the LD’s losing 15 seats, even more. They wouldn’t get a look in.
And a delay would provide the LD’s and Ming with a big opt out- he would be able to step down with his integrity intact. And then we would get Clegg who is Cameron’s twin brother- and that would really confuse the punters out there come 2009/10.
82 - When are we expecting Cameron to inherit?
I agree with Sean T about Cameron. I’ve often found his stunts irritating, but I do think the public actually like him more than any other Conservative leader in recent times. I think that the “change” message has come dangerously close to alienating Conservative voters (an approval rating that fell to 45% among Conservative voters was appalling) and that he and his advisers seriously underrated Gordon Brown. However, the Party conference shows that where Cameron can marry his style to traditional Conservative policies, he can appeal both to Conservatives and to floating voters.
How much better off will Brown be from this IHT change?
Large House in Scotland = £300k+
Flat in London (rented out) = £500k+
Answer = £200k minimum!
79. To put the question another way, how rich do you have to be to have an income of more than £63,000 without working? (A: Not all that rich) How many millionaires are there in London? How many of them are non-doms?
Now 10.02 bn.
Correction: budget miscalculation: 9.99995 bn. Phew we’ve paid for David Cameron’s inheritance
79 - Do you go to bed thinking about IHT and non-doms?
Why not change the subject for a bit? People might start listening rather than skipping anything you post.
Compared to labour proposals the sums are minuscule, if you have class hatred in your heart then it might anger you but, frankly, you don’t count in these calculations. Any whinging just makes you more angry and, let’s face it, when you are supporting a party that is merely one step left of Howard’s tories you just look vindictive and petty. Labour supporters have no right to talk about fairness now we’ve cottoned onto Brown’s conservatism. Still, I suppose your rich non-dom friends are much more worthy and you’ll creep and crawl to them to your heart’s content.
Actually Camerons wife will also be £280,000 better off.
£560,000 for the couple.
Very nice.
WRT IHT, £3bn is small change in terms of overall tax revenue, and government expenditure. It could easily be funded.
Tim, people from David Cameron’s background usually pay little or nothing in terms of IHT, because their families can invest in complex tax planning, and are much more likely to hold assets that don’t attract IHT (eg farms, woods, country houses, artworks, business proeprty). The IHT proposals will benefit people outside the ranks of the very rich, whose main assets are the family home, savings and life policies.
86 - I am not sure that the change message did or has alienated conservative members. I think they were merely frustrated that it was the only message, now we seem to be getting an emerging coherent conservative theme then I think most conservatives are happy.
78.Are you an expert on the Cameron family finances, or are you just plucking a figure out of the sky and spinning it?
86- sean fear- traditional values like schools being able to exclude children without an appeal. Do people honestly think that is fair?
93. I agree with that. Oddly, after so long in the philosophical wilderness, the one thing people are no longer accusing the Tories of is not having policy. Personally I still think that is rather dangerous and that Brown has managed to gain something from this whole mess in that sense. Still I would hope that Cameron and Osbourne have more up their sleeve, as yet unrevealed …
re 71. Your attack is unfounded. I can find no published data to support your accusation about my probity and I very much resent what you are saying.
I have the details from the Populus poll which I reproduced above. The ICM survey detail is not out and YouGov’s data does not appear to have a before and after split.
On what are you basing your comment.
Tim
Can I help you to grow up. The cruise ships are full of people on expensive cruises who take big chunks of capital out of the country. Why? Because given our present IHT everything they spend (down to taking their wealth to the £300k level) is 40% off. I am in this position and in the next few weeks, for starters, I’m transferring £15k - helping also to avoid quite a bit of CGT - to my daughter and I’ll be spending quite profusely over the next few years. If I have 5 more years of Gordon Brown I’ll make sure that lots of this spending is abroad - abroad as will be all my assets in a few years, if IHT stays at 40% and at its present ludicrous threshold.
93 Yes, I think that’s about right.
86 - 2I’ve often found his stunts irritating…” That’s the understatement of the year. But your recent improved behaviour has been noted by the pbc Tory collective.
Why is the Labour Party letting it be known that the reason for the Tory bounce is the Inheritance tax plan? This is almost as stupid as saying that you are not going to give a running commentary on the election timing, whilst all your senior aides appear to do precisely that.
As a Labour supporter I do wonder whether the tactical astuteness is there.
84 Tyson, you ask about the Lib Dems and a loss in the range of 15 is highly likely. Scotland, South West and the South are the areas feeling the pressure.
About 30 of their MPs must be feeling vulnerable and whilst they would be lower in the polls whatever Leader they picked, their present Leader does not improve their ratings every time he is on tv. There is no “added value” factor.
This psuedo election period that we are in has focused everyone in all parties on what their GE prospects are. This maybe the decision point for Ming. If Gordon does not call a GE we should not be surprised if a move comes from the threatened LD MPs to try and improve their prospects.
19
Class Hatred in British Politics [Irrational prejudices, please ignore if busy]
A large proportion of the working class vote Labour because they always have, family tradition. Good for Labour, not much hatred though.
There is a significant group of older workers, caught by the Thatcher revolution, who cannot forgive the Tories - some bitterness there.
The there is the group who, whilst not part of the enterprise, wealth creating sector, through hard work, good education and intelligence get reasonably good jobs in the media, journalism, politics,education etc. They think they deserve to be running the country and regard the undeserving social elite with loathing.
They are not the tribunes of the down trodden masses, however. They are the heirs to the tenant farmers, bailiffs and clergymen of old who, once they had risen to a certain level, sat on the boards of guardians and sent the feckless poor to the workhouse.Or they are the heirs to the shopkeepers who wished to dish out charity to the feckless poor so they would still be able to come to their shops.
Bournville Observer (98) - bit off topic, but never mind - Does that mean that whatever you leave overseas does not qualify for IHT? And that IHT is levied only on what you possess(ed) in the UK?
Tyson
Doesn’t it occur to you that if headmasters are told, as they are repeatedly, that their decisions on exclusion are rejected, it totally undermines their authority.
These panels appear to be made up of people obsessed with the human rights of those children recommended for exclusion and who completely ignore the human rights of the majority of children to have a decent education.
Of course it’s important, as DC was careful to say, that every effort is made to care for the needs of children who are excluded but they have no ‘right’ to destroy the education of others in their school.
78 I don’t think any of them are planning on dying in the near future, The point is none of them will be better off, but their families won’t be taxed to death, at death.
100 - Ooooohhhh!
Back on vague topic, I wonder if we’re all reading Gordon wrong here. Everything in his known character says that having come within an ace of taking the decision he’ll pull back. It’s last September all over again.
And yet, and yet (doing my best Nick Robinson impression) maybe these calls will make it even more likely that he’ll go. Everything he has done since he became leader has been about confounding previous perceptions. In fact doing the opposite of what people expect has been his party trick for years.
Maybe he’s about to do it again.
An article in today’s Scotsman.
http://tinyurl.com/2cdam6
‘Swinney gets power to spend Scotland’s money
THE Scottish Government has won its battle for control of a £1 billion fund of Scottish money held by the Treasury.
The unprecedented deal thrashed out between Nationalist and Labour ministers will allow the SNP access to the money over the next three years.
The SNP had argued it was Scotland’s money so Scotland should be able to spend it without having to get Treasury permission.’
must be an election in the air.
107 - Fairish point. However this is a make or break decision and one suspects that which ever way he jumps now its break.
108 - What is this money? Scotland’s reserves?
The Cameron’s 560,000 pounds better off thanks to their own tax proposals. You couldn’t make it up if you tried. You wait til Labour start gunning on this.
Still, nothing like taxing the rich to help the rich - especially Old Etonian aristocrats.
Meanwhile 19 in every 20 people in this country can just stand and drool.
111 - If views like yours are prevailing around the inner sanctum then I can see a heck of a lot of tactical mistakes in the offing.
111 - How about apologising to Mike Smithson @97, or substantiate your claim?
111
Wonder how much John Prescott will leave, maybe he will be spending all our hard earned dosh that is his pension abroad in order to avoid IHT. Or Blair with his multi million pound house.
I guess I have to sympathise with Roger, Tyson and co on one point: a few months ago us Tories were happily rolling along with knowledge we were ahead in the polls, at points by quite substantial margins, and ‘knowing’ that Brown would be a miserable failure. Since then, Brown has come along, shown himself to be nothing like the liability we thought he was, won himself support in the polls, and almost put the cat amongst the pigeons with his scare-mongering about an early election. Yet suddenly Cameron gives a good speech, and Osbourne offers tax cuts; and sure enough the polls seem to show us making a come back - but only to levels less than they were three months ago!
And yet we Tories appear to be (and I think this is genuine) if anything, *more* confident and enthusiastic about the electoral future than when we were 10 points ahead of Blair. Is this all unjustified, given Brown’s obvious early outperformance of our expectations? I guess the only thing else that has added to the flavour is that Brown, whilst performing creditably as a politician, seems to have shown a possibly serious error of judgement as a statesman in letting a great game get out of control and allow himself to be taken hostage by a monster he created in the first place. The question is, how serious is this error and has it exposed him enough to raise Tory confidence in the way that it has? What does this actually tell us?
I agree with several on here particularly Sean alex and Anatole that the speech in terms of mood might have shifted things but only a little-but that’s not what Mike is saying. He’s pointing to an immediate 5% shift on the strength of the speech alone within 24 hours. I doubt 2% heard the speech and probably less than 15% had even heard parts of it by the following day. So a 5% shift represents roughly 30% of all who heard a part of the speech!
By contrast many more perhaps as many as 40% would have been aware of this tangible tax offer and that could well have shifted some opinion.
Where did the name “Reverend Doctor” come from, anyway? Seems a bit silly to me.
117 - Little evidence of Christian charity is there? Or indeed academic rigour for that matter.
116 - It’s the media reaction, not the speech.
Media says Cameron is a PM in waiting, people say, hang on maybe we were wrong about him before (when we thought he wasn’t a PM in waiting because the media said so).
116. (Sorry Mike that should be 4% not 5%)
118 - presumably charities will do well from the IHT move, won’t they?
11-I tend to agree (for once with Roger!!). What people will remember from last week is IHT and GB’s incredibly ill advised stunt to Iraq.
Vladimir: ‘Well? Shall we go?’ Estragon: ‘Yes, let’s go’. They do not move.”
still waiting for Gordon….
119. Alex. If that was the case wouldn’t you have expected his personal ratings to have gone up significantly which they didn’t? I’m quite prepared to believe that the media gave Cameron a lift but to seriously lift the Tory share of the vote you would need something much more tangible than a speech. Infact something like a tax cut which then turns it into an approval question.
Roger is right, the Cameron speech was about mood music and long term effect rather than shifting polls.
I also note, Roger, your admission of Brown’s politics seeming to leave you behind somewhat. Sorry for pushing you on that earlier but it was so obvious that any left-liberal would be discomfited. Any chance you’ll come back to the lib dems, after all we are now to the left of labour in many areas?
124 - his personal ratings did go up, didn’t they?
104 All your assets UK and foreign are eligible for IHT
113. Apologise? Mike has used 1/10th of one poll, ignoring counter-evidence which people like Peter Riddell are referring to. At least be balanced and post up the counter-arguments rather than a very flimsy minute sample that shows LibDem support increasing rather than the argument being projected. Mike’s mostly very good but has occasional moments like this, and we all need to be kept on our times when we succumb to such temptations. To be fair he did put a health warning, but even so.
117. Someone I know suggested it. Seemed a good idea at the time for various reasons.
Those who don’t like the point being made that the Camerons will be 560,000 better off from their own proposals, whilst 19 out of 20 people in the country will just have to watch and drool don’t realise how nasty this campaign will get when the truth is being revealed.
And, for the record, yes I do think Brown should have been castigated over the Iraq trip.
114 - Are there any memebers of the Labour Cabinet over the past ten years who would not potentially benefit from the Tories’ IHT proposal I wonder?
It is why it is great politics from Osborne - if the class warriors fire up about how much Cameron and Osborne benefit, then the Tories play it back about how New Labour’s team benefit too - and highlight just how far New Labour has moved from its core vote. I suspect a number of wavering Labour voters will think “a plague on all your houses - all these politicians are as bad as each other, in it for what they can get….”.
122 - THAT’S IT!
4% move from Labour-> LibDem after Wednesday. What issue drives Labour supporters to LibDems?
Tim at 73. That’s a poor argument. To suggest a politician would propose a policy to enrich themselves is scraping the barrel. What you could argue is that they might introduce policies to enrich their natural voters but anything else is daft.
128 - So you want a nasty campaign? Politics will lose if that’s the way things go, good for those of us who would like to see wholesale changes in the system but risky for those who currently wield the power.
118. Who said I’m a Christian? I’m not actually a Revd, although I am a Doctor (of PhD variety). It’s a long story that I won’t go into here.
alex Certainly not DC’s speech which seemed to be what Mike was implying. But look at the weekend polls; there wasn’t any sign of LD recovery there as far as I can recall.
re 126. These are the YouGov figures -
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/C4%20full.pdf
Just compare the non-voting answers with what the YouGov panel provided in the Telegraph a week ago.
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/telegraph%20full.pdf
128 - 1/2 of one poll surely
130 - I tend to think it’s partly sampling error but also the Iraq stunt making sure that those ‘going home’ (sic) are now shifting back to lib dems again.
Seant Camerons got firms beliefs, now I know your taking the piss.
The whole point is he hasn`t in public at least, thats why some are unsure what he stands for.
He needs to be an empty vessle to try and attract a few Liberal green, swinger,numpties, not you, who I know does have strong thoughts and will vote tory anyways.
134 - Iraq of course. Didn’t Brown go there mid week?
I think once people realise that only 10% of people actually benefit from the cut in IHT people will begin to move back to Labour. I’m not convinced by the argument about moving assets abroad - surely that’s an argument for taxing people on their worlwide income (as the US does).
In any case (and slightly OT) one of the interesting things to look at will be the extent to which local factors will affect individual seats.
http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/category/british-politics/
Paul. I would come to the Lib Dems if they had a chance of winning but my chief motivation is to keep the Tories out. Perhaps I’m a bit older than you but the memory of Thatcher is still there for me.
re 128. That’s not an answer. Produce the data.
30 “Tow more years”
Benedict, quite honestly I thought your response to stjohn was uncalled for. He may be a Brummie, but he doesn’t sound like one - in fact he’s posh, rather like…well…Dave.
If there’s one thing worse for Labour than the voters being reminded about Iraq, it’s the voters seeing Labour attempting to make political capital out of it.
135. Mike all of that can be explained through the Tory proposals earlier in the week though. And don’t tell me we’re reliant on leading questions to back this up?
I wouldn’t be writing this if I didn’t think it was the case. It is known inside Labour circles that the IHT proposals, and others actually, gave them a huge lift. I might concede that Cameron consolidated, but I am certain it was the first part of the Conference that clinched it.
132. Cameron has been playing extremely dirty the last few weeks.
141 - I’m early 40s (about the same as tyson I think), I presume that in Guildford you’d vote lib dem then?
Could someone please tell me where the estimated £100M that this election will cost is coming from?
I merely ask on behalf of the many men and women serving in our Armed Forces who are bemused that funds are available for one mans ego but not for equipment for the 12000 (+/-) personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
141 - so all this stuff about Gordon being the greatest leader in at least 30 years is all just spin then roger?
145
“Cameron has been playing extremely dirty the last few weeks.”
?????????????????????????????????????????????????
116 the next day coverage was amazing. Double page spread in the Sun, Guardian “virtuoso” etc. Impossible to avoid.
147 - It is the cost of printing ballot papers, notices of poll. The police and security effort. Manning the polling stations, and counting the votes.
145 - yes he has refused to roll over and play dead in front of the Labour juggernaut. Extremely dirty, filthy even.
142 - I don’t think this is going to be your lucky day on that score. Truth is, of course, he can’t….but hasn’t the good grace to admit it.
141 But your hero PM probably has a photo of him and Her Ladyship on his desk next to the one of him and Bush, him and Sarkozy…. He even got his son John to present her a bouquet to welcome her back to No 10
145-Rich coming from A Labour supporter.
121-IHT has nothign to do with charities. All bequests to charity are tax exempt.
140-Now it’s 10% benefitting, a few days ago it was 5%. Any cues for next week’s %? In any case, why should there be IHT?
Reading the polls and all the wonderful interpetations and scenarios, that each poll seems to produce, I think posters should occasionally remember and be guided by this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_razor
155 - Thought it might be. Worth a try